IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. Petitioner, CASE NO. SC vs. CASE NO. 2D

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. Petitioner, CASE NO. SC vs. CASE NO. 2D"

Transcription

1 IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida, Petitioner, CASE NO. SC vs. CASE NO. 2D HONEST AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING, INC., CORY BABCOCK, and WILLIAM STEVENSON, Respondents. / BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF PETITIONER GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. On Review from the District Court of Appeal Second District, State of Florida KATHERINE E. GIDDINGS (949396) THOMAS A. RANGE (568651) AKERMAN SENTERFITT 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, FL Phone: (850) Fax: (850) Attorneys for GMAC

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Authorities... ii Statement of the Case and Facts... 1 Summary of the Argument... 3 Argument... 4 THE DISTRICT COURT S OPINION DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT'S OPINION IN CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF ORLANDO V. BORNSTEIN, WHICH HELD THAT AN EXPLICIT UCC DEFENSE APPLICABLE TO A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT UNDER CHAPTER 673 IS NOT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO NON-NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS GOVERNED BY CHAPTER Standard of Review... 4 Argument... 5 Conclusion Certificate of Service Certificate of Font Compliance Appendix: Second District Court of Appeal's Decision...Tab

3 Cases TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1997)... 4 Citizens National Bank of Orlando v. Bornstein, 374 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1979)..Passim Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Hardt, 646 F. Supp. 209 (C.D. Ill. 1986)... 9 Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Honest Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 933 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)...Passim Statutes (2)(a), (c), Fla. Stat... 9 Chapter 673, Fla. Stat....Passim , Fla. Stat , Fla. Stat (1), Fla. Stat (1)(c), Fla. Stat , Fla. Stat....2, 6, (6), Fla. Stat (9)(b), Fla. Stat... 7 Chapter 679, Fla. Stat....Passim (k), Fla. Stat (1), Fla. Stat... 9 ii

4 Constitutional Provisions Art. V, 3(b)(3), Fla. Const... 4 Court Rules Rule 9.020(g), Fla. R. App. P... 2 Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), Fla. R. App. P... 4 Rule 9.210(a)(2), Fla. R. App. P Other Authorities Fla. Stat. Ann , V. 19B, Comment 2 (West 1993 and Supp. 2006) iii

5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In September 2001, Cory Babcock and Honest Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. ( Respondents ) contracted with Cox Chevrolet to purchase a Chevrolet Corvette through a retail installment sales contract (the Contract ). Gen. Motors Accept. Corp. v. Honest Air Cond. & Heating, Inc., 933 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Cox Chevrolet assigned the Contract, which was secured by the Corvette, to General Motors Acceptance Corp. ( GMAC ). Id. at 35. In September 2002, GMAC telephoned Respondents regarding their failure to make the required monthly payment. Respondent Babcock informed GMAC that he traded the vehicle in August to Florida Auto Brokers ( Auto Brokers ) and would contact them regarding the payoff amount due GMAC. Three months later, Babcock finally informed GMAC that Auto Brokers would send the payoff on the Corvette with instructions as to the vehicle s title. Id. at Auto Brokers sent GMAC a check to pay off the amount due. GMAC then released the lien and forwarded the title to Auto Brokers. Subsequently, the check from Auto Brokers was dishonored for insufficient funds. Id. at 36. In July 2003, GMAC sued Respondents for damages arising from their breach of the terms of the Contract. 1 1 GMAC also sued William Stevenson, the salesman for Auto Brokers who handled the Corvette transaction. Stevenson entered a stipulation for settlement with GMAC but subsequently defaulted under the terms of the settlement and final judgment was entered against him. Id. 36, n.4. Stevenson was a named party in the appeal before the Second District (and in this proceeding) only for purposes of

6 In defending the claim, Respondents asserted the Contract was a negotiable instrument governed by the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) and, thus, they were entitled to the UCC impairment of collateral defense in , Florida Statutes. That defense, which only applies to negotiable instruments, provides that the failure to maintain perfection of interest in collateral or to preserve the value of collateral discharges debtors to the extent the impairment would cause the debtors to pay more than they would have had to pay if the impairment had not occurred. Id. The trial court issued judgment in favor of Respondents, finding: (1) the Contract is a negotiable instrument under Chapter 673; (2) the impairment of collateral defense in applied; (3) GMAC impaired the collateral by releasing the lien before the dealer s check cleared; and (4) the collateral s value exceeded the amount claimed by GMAC, so no damages were due GMAC. Id. On appeal, the Second District held that the UCC impairment of collateral defense contained in Chapter 673 did not apply because the Contract is not a negotiable instrument governed by the UCC. Unlike a negotiable instrument, which is solely for the payment of money, the Contract here created a series of obligations on the parties. Even though the UCC defense of impairment of collateral did not compliance with Rule 9.020(g), which provides that an appellee is [e]very party in the lower tribunal other than an appellant. 2

7 apply, the district court concluded the defense was otherwise available and affirmed the trial court s judgment in favor of Respondents. Id. at SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT In this case, the district court held that the non-negotiable Contract at issue is not governed by Chapter 673 of the UCC and, consequently, that the UCC defense of impairment of collateral in Chapter 673 does not apply. The district court nevertheless concluded that the defense was otherwise available to bar GMAC s recovery of monies the Respondents unquestionably owed to GMAC under the terms of the Contract. The district court s decision expressly and directly conflicts with this Court s decision in Citizens National Bank of Orlando v. Bornstein, 374 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1979). In Bornstein, this Court held that a UCC defense applicable to a negotiable contract under Chapter 673 (in that case the simple contract defense ) is not otherwise available for application to a non-negotiable contract governed by other sections of the UCC unless specifically incorporated by statute. Bornstein is consistent with federal case law, which recognizes that unique UCC defenses, such as the impairment of collateral defense, are not available under the circumstances here. The proper analysis would have been for the district court to determine whether another defense, if pleaded, was available under general contract or common law principles. If left to stand, the Second District s decision will have a tremendous impact on the commercial finance industry and may significantly delay vehicle transfer 3

8 transactions. Equally as important, the decision will void clear contractual obligations where, as here, the creditor has done nothing more than release a lien at the request of the debtor who had already released possession of the collateral. When a debtor voluntarily releases collateral to a third party, the creditor s release of a lien for whatever reason does not mean that valid obligations under the Contract are not enforceable. The UCC is intended to simplify the law governing commercial transactions and make the law uniform among the various jurisdictions. The district court s decision undermines this policy by creating a special rule that only applies to Florida transactions. ARGUMENT THE DISTRICT COURT S OPINION DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT'S OPINION IN CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF ORLANDO V. BORNSTEIN, WHICH HELD THAT AN EXPLICIT UCC DEFENSE APPLICABLE TO A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT UNDER CHAPTER 673 IS NOT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO NON-NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS GOVERNED BY CHAPTER 679. Standard of Review. This Court has discretionary jurisdiction to review a decision of a district court of appeal that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision from this Court on the same point of law. Art. V, 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), Fla. R. App. P. The basis for conflict must appear within the four corners of the district court's decision. Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 1997). 4

9 Argument. Chapter 673, which is the Florida equivalent of Article 3 of the UCC, governs negotiable instruments. Negotiable instruments are unconditional promises to pay a fixed amount of money and are payable on demand at a definite time (1). A negotiable instrument does not state any other undertaking in addition to the payment of money (1)(c). Chapter 679, which is the Florida equivalent of Article 9 of the UCC, governs chattel paper. A chattel paper is a document that evidences both a monetary obligation and a security interest granted in specific goods (k). As the district court correctly recognized in this case, typical retail installment sales contracts for vehicles, such as the Contract at issue, are not negotiable instruments because they create a series of obligations on the vehicle purchaser. 2 General Mtrs. Accept. Corp., 933 So. 2d at Instead, such contracts are chattel paper because they create a monetary obligation and a security interest in a vehicle. In this case, after GMAC brought suit to enforce payment pursuant to the terms of the Contract, the Respondents asserted the Contract was a negotiable instrument and, as such, they were entitled to the impairment of collateral defense 2 Among other things, the Contract required the buyer to buy the vehicle on credit under the agreement, to pay the creditor the amount financed and finance charge according to the payment schedule, to give the creditor a security interest in the vehicle, to not move the vehicle from the United States, to reimburse advances made by the creditor in payment of repair or storage bills, and required the creditor to agree to dispose of the collateral in certain ways following repossession. 5

10 in (6). Under that defense, if a person entitled to enforce an obligation under a negotiable instrument impairs the value of the interest in collateral securing the obligation, the debtor is discharged to the extent the impairment causes the debtor to pay more than the debtor would have been obliged to pay had the impairment not occurred (6). Because the Contract at issue is not a negotiable instrument governed by Chapter 673, the district court held that Respondents were not entitled to relief under s impairment of collateral defense. The court nevertheless concluded the defense was otherwise available. The court based that conclusion on a selected portion of a general UCC comment under , which defines the term negotiable instrument. The district court quoted as follows: Words making a promise or order payable to bearer or to order are the most distinguishing feature of a negotiable instrument and such words are frequently referred to as words of negotiability. Article 3 is not meant to apply to contracts for the sale of goods or services or the sale or lease of real property or similar writings that may contain a promise to pay money. The use of words of negotiability in such contracts would be an aberration.... Although such a writing cannot be made a negotiable instrument within Article 3 by contract or conduct of its parties, nothing in Section or in Section is intended to mean that in a particular case involving such a writing a court could not arrive at a result similar to the result that would follow if the writing were a negotiable instrument. Gen. Motors Accept. Corp., 933 So. 2d at 37. Without citing to any authority other than this portion of the comment, the district court concluded that the impairment of collateral defense was otherwise available here because the result would be 6

11 similar to the result that would follow if the [Contract] were a negotiable instrument. In making this finding, the district court failed to quote the rest of the paragraph, which clarifies that the similar result envisioned by the comment is a result arising from defenses not pleaded here such as estoppel or ordinary principles of contract. The remainder of the paragraph provides: For example, a court might find that the obligor with respect to a promise that does not fall within Section 3-104(a) is precluded from asserting a defense against a bona fide purchaser. The preclusion could be based on estoppel or ordinary principles of contract. It does not depend upon the law of negotiable instruments. Fla. Stat. Ann , V. 19B at 29, Cmt. 2 (West 1993 and Supp. 2006)(emphasis added). At bottom, the district court incorrectly applied a defense that does not exist under principles of contract law or common law. Importantly, specifically allows the impairment of collateral defense to be waived by the parties (9)(b). Were it envisioned that the impairment of collateral defense in Chapter 673 was meant to apply to non-negotiable instruments such as the Contract at issue, the parties to such instruments would have had the option of including a waiver provision in the Contract. Obviously until now since Chapter 673 defenses did not apply to instruments governed by other provisions of the UCC unless those provisions explicitly provided otherwise, no such waiver provision was thought to be necessary. In addition to being wrong on the merits, the district court s application of the impairment of collateral defense to the Contract is in direct conflict with this 7

12 Court s decision with Citizens Nat l Bank of Orlando v. Bornstein, 374 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1979). In Bornstein, this Court addressed several questions from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the set-off rights and defenses available to an obligor against the assignee of a non-negotiable certificate of deposit. The final question addressed by this Court was whether the UCC should be liberally construed to allow the simple contract defense in Chapter 673 to be otherwise available to a transaction governed by Chapter 679. This Court held that the Chapter 673 defense was not otherwise available because, among other things, the transaction did not meet the definition of a negotiable instrument or of a nonnegotiable instrument meeting all of the requirements of negotiability. Further, the Court concluded that neither by incorporation through section nor by the express terms of article 9 is the Chapter 673 defense available under Chapter 679. Id. at 13. Effectively, this Court concluded that, if the framers had meant for the defense to apply to Chapter 679 transactions, they would have said so. Although federal cases cannot be the basis for conflict, at least one federal decision illustrates that not only is the decision under review in conflict with this Court s decision in Bornstein; but it is also in conflict with general principles governing application of the UCC impairment of collateral defense. Consistent with Bornstein, in Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Hardt, 646 F. Supp. 209 (C.D. Ill. 1986), the federal court held that the impairment of collateral defense in Article 3 is not available to non-negotiable instruments under which a vehicle has been used as 8

13 collateral. Both Bornstein and Hardt are consistent with (1), which reminds that a creditor like GMAC retains its right to seek a judgment on the debt itself without foreclosing on the collateral. GMAC s lien release, issued at the request of Respondents, impaired nothing other than GMAC s ability to use proceeds to reduce the debt owed it did not eliminate GMAC s cumulative right to collect on the debt itself. Through legislative mandate, the UCC is to be construed to, among other things, simplify the law governing commercial transactions and make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions (2)(a), (c). Rather than creating uniformity, the Second District s decision creates a new defense unique to Florida. Such a result will compel an individualized analysis of a uniform law depending on the location of the transaction. Moreover, as mentioned above, the UCC allows parties to insert contractual waivers of defenses. It is telling that no such waiver was part of the transaction at issue because the uniform law, as evidenced by the Hardt decision, does not include an impairment of collateral defense for transactions governed by Chapter 679. Since the law is supposed to be uniform, inclusion of a contractual waiver of a defense that does not apply to the instant transaction should be unnecessary. If left to stand, the Second District s decision will have a tremendous impact on the commercial finance industry and may significantly delay vehicle transactions. The decision could be devastating to the ability of consumers to secure title to 9

14 vehicles. Banks clear checks on vastly different schedules, and as a result of the district court s decision, creditors may begin requiring certified funds, which would result in increased costs to consumers, as well as delaying transactions and the titling of vehicles. Consumers would have to make additional trips to dealers to obtain their vehicles. Rather than facilitating commercial transactions, the district court s decision will complicate and delay one of the most common consumer transactions and interject an additional requirement into Chapter 679 not included nor intended by its drafters. In this case, Respondents voluntarily transferred title and released the collateral to a third party. Only after that, and upon Respondents request, did GMAC release the lien. The district court s decision allows parties to void clear contractual obligations where, as here, the creditor has done nothing more than release a lien at the request of the debtor who had already released possession of the collateral. The fact GMAC released a lien does not mean that valid obligations under the Contract are not enforceable. CONCLUSION For the reasons expressed, GMAC respectfully submits that this Court should accept jurisdiction to review the Second District s decision in this case. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by United States Mail this day of, 2006, to George R. McLain 10

15 and Daniel Joy, 1800 Second Street, Suite 717, Sarasota, Florida (counsel for Respondents), and Marie P. Montefusco, 1333 S. University Drive, Suite 201, Plantation, FL (counsel for Petitioner in the Second District appellate proceeding). Respectfully submitted, KATHERINE E. GIDDINGS (949396) THOMAS A. RANGE (568651) AKERMAN SENTERFITT 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, FL Phone: (850) Fax: (850) Attorneys for GMAC CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the font used in this brief is the Times New Roman 14-point font and that the brief complies with the font requirements of Rule 9.210(a)(2). KATHERINE E. GIDDINGS 11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MELANIE J. HENSLEY, successor to RON SCHULTZ, as Citrus County Property Appraiser, etc., vs. Petitioner, Case No.: SC05-1415 LT Case No.: 5D03-2026 TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (DCA 1DO2-4491) KEETON CORRECTIONS, INC., d/b/a JACKSONVILLE MINIMUM SECURITY SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (DCA 1DO2-4491) KEETON CORRECTIONS, INC., d/b/a JACKSONVILLE MINIMUM SECURITY SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (DCA 1DO2-4491) KEETON CORRECTIONS, INC., d/b/a JACKSONVILLE MINIMUM SECURITY SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY Petitioner, v. RJ & RK, INC., a corporation and KIMBERLY KEETON SPENCE,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ERVIN HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC04-1808 Petitioner, Lower Tribunals: Third District Court of Appeal v. Case No.: 3D03-1508 ISLAMORADA,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN A. HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN A. HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ERVIN A. HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC08-2389 Petitioner, Lower Tribunals: Third District Court of Appeal v. Case No.: 3D08-564 WILLIAM

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JOHN ROLLAS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-1526

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PAULA McCARTHA, vs. Petitioner, Case No. SC06-466 Fifth District Case No. 5D05-1776 THE CADLE COMPANY, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Petition to Review a Decision

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA ROB TURNER, as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser, Petitioner, vs. Case No. SC08-540 FLORIDA STATE FAIR AUTHORITY, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S ANSWER

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-263 Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728 MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, JERALD MCLAUGHLIN, individually, and CARL E. ALBREKSTEN, individually, vs.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF APPELLEES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF APPELLEES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-222 4 TH DCA CASE NO.: 4D03-711 L.T. NO.: AP 01-9039-AY PIERSON D. CONSTRUCTION, INC., A Florida corporation vs. Appellant MARTIN YUDELL and JUDITH

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA WOODIE H. THOMAS, III on behalf of himself Petitioner, CASE NO. SC07-1527 FOURTH DCA CASE NO. 4D06-16 vs. VISION I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. a non-profit

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Lower Tribunal Case No.: 3D SPENCER MCGUINNESS, Petitioner, PROSPECT ARAGON, LLC,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Lower Tribunal Case No.: 3D SPENCER MCGUINNESS, Petitioner, PROSPECT ARAGON, LLC, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC08-1294 Lower Tribunal Case No.: 3D07-1452 SPENCER MCGUINNESS, Petitioner, v. PROSPECT ARAGON, LLC, Respondent. PETITIONER S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION (with

More information

Michael Anthony Shaw and Joseph D. Steadman, Jr., of Jones Walker LLP, Miami, for Appellant.

Michael Anthony Shaw and Joseph D. Steadman, Jr., of Jones Walker LLP, Miami, for Appellant. WHITNEY BANK, a Mississippi state chartered bank, formerly known as HANCOCK BANK, a Mississippi state chartered bank, as assignee of the FDIC as receiver for PEOPLES FIRST COMMUNITY BANK, a Florida banking

More information

CASE NO. L.T. No. 1D AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, CUSTOM MOBILITY, INC., PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

CASE NO. L.T. No. 1D AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, CUSTOM MOBILITY, INC., PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. L.T. No. 1D07-4608 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, vs. Petitioner, CUSTOM MOBILITY, INC., Respondent. On Discretionary Conflict Review of a Decision of the

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LEWIS Y. and BETTY T. WARD, et al., Petitioner, v. GREGORY S. BROWN, Property Appraiser of Santa Rosa County, et al., Case Nos. SC05-1765, SC05-1766 1st DCA Case No. 1D04-1629

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT SARA R. MACKENZIE AND RALPH MACKENZIE, Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION SENATE DRS35055-LTz-20A* (2/14)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION SENATE DRS35055-LTz-20A* (2/14) S GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 SENATE DRS0-LTz-A* (/) D Short Title: Revise UCC Article on Bulk Transfers. Sponsors: Senator Hartsell. Referred to: (Public) A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 3d TRIAL COURT CASE NO MARIA T.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 3d TRIAL COURT CASE NO MARIA T. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-1526 DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 3d06-1873 TRIAL COURT CASE NO. 05-15150 MARIA T. THORNHILL Plaintiff / Petitioner Vs. ADMIRAL FARRAGUT CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee. No. 4D14-0699 [October 14, 2015]

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RICHARD KEITH MARTIN, ROBERT DOUGLAS MARTIN, MARTIN COMPANIES OF DAYTONA BEACH, MARTIN ASPHALT COMPANY AND MARTIN PAVING COMPANY, Petitioners, CASE NO: 92,046 vs. DEPARTMENT

More information

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT FLORIDA WEST REALTY PARTNERS, LLC Petitioner, Case No.: SC07-155 Lower Court Case No.: 2D06-5808 v. MDG LAKE TRAFFORD, LLC, Respondent. / PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Mark

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STEPHEN and DONNA RICHARDS, Appellants, v. Case No. SC07-1383 Case No. 4D06-1173 L.T. Case No. 2004-746CA03 MARILYN and ROBERT TAYLOR, Appellees. / An Appeal from the Fourth District

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Petitioner, CASE NO: SC03-400 FIFTH DCA NO: 5D01-3413 v. ST. JOHNS COUNTY, Respondent. / On Discretionary Review from the District Court

More information

Released for Publication November 2, COUNSEL

Released for Publication November 2, COUNSEL 1 FINCH V. BENEFICIAL N.M., 1995-NMSC-068, 120 N.M. 658, 905 P.2d 198 (S. Ct. 1995) IN RE: CLETE NORMAN FINCH and MARY LOUISE FINCH, Debtors. CLETE NORMAN FINCH and MARY LOUISE FINCH, Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants,

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida LEWIS, C. J. No. SC05-2045 S AND T BUILDERS, Petitioner, vs. GLOBE PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. [November 16, 2006] We have for review the decision in S & T Builders v. Globe

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 16, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1575 Lower Tribunal No. 14-201-K Norma Barton,

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004 ALLISON M. COSTELLO, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D02-3117 THE CURTIS BUILDING PARTNERSHIP, Appellee. Opinion filed

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA The City of Key West, Florida, Petitioner, v. Kathy Rollison, Respondent. Supreme Court Case No. SC04-1506 PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF (Amended) On Review from the

More information

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2014-NMCA-097 Filing Date: July 22, 2014 Docket No. 32,310 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. INLET VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. and 40 N.E. PLANTATION ROAD #306, LLC, Appellees.

More information

News. Enforcing Rules on Security Interests. UCC revisions to fixtures and personal property offer clarity, if not certainty

News. Enforcing Rules on Security Interests. UCC revisions to fixtures and personal property offer clarity, if not certainty News Enforcing Rules on Security Interests UCC revisions to fixtures and personal property offer clarity, if not certainty By John P. McCahey New York Law Journal On July 1, 2001, revised Article 9 of

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009 Opinion filed January 21, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D07-3006 Lower Tribunal No.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 2 ND DCA CASE NO FSC CASE NO ROB TURNER, as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser. Appellant, vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 2 ND DCA CASE NO FSC CASE NO ROB TURNER, as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser. Appellant, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 2 ND DCA CASE NO. 07-1411 FSC CASE NO. 08-540 ROB TURNER, as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser Appellant, vs. FLORIDA STATE FAIR AUTHORITY Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ADRIANNE NOLDEN, Appellant, v. SUMMIT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, DAVID WHEELER, ALVIN WHEELER, ART RICHARDSON, and HOLCOMBE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, 03-14195) JOEL W. ROBBINS (Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser); IAN YORTY (Miami-Dade County

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2013

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2013 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2013 Opinion filed May 15, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-1336 Lower Tribunal No. 02-07078

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC Lower Court Case Number 4D ELLER DRIVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC Lower Court Case Number 4D ELLER DRIVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC06-2351 Lower Court Case Number 4D04-3895 ELLER DRIVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs. BROWARD COUNTY, a political subdivision of the STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2005

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2005 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2005 METEOR MOTORS, INC., d/b/a PALM BEACH ACURA, Appellant, v. THOMPSON HALBACH & ASSOCIATES, an Arizona corporation, Appellee.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA : SURF SIDE TOWER CONDOMINIUM : ASSOCIATION, INC.; and : INTERVENORS, CHARLES AND : LINDA SCHROPP, : : Defendant/Intervenors/Petitioners, : CASE NUMBER: SC10-1141 v. : :

More information

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS PRESENT: All the Justices BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No. 062715 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY James V. Lane, Judge

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed September 19, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-360 Lower Tribunal No.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case Number: SC CITY OF PALM BAY, Petitioner, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case Number: SC CITY OF PALM BAY, Petitioner, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case Number: SC11-830 CITY OF PALM BAY, Petitioner, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Respondent. On Discretionary Review from the Fifth District Court of Appeal Fifth DCA Case

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LAKE FOREST PARTNERS 2, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION June 6, 2006 9:05 a.m. v No. 257417 Tax Tribunal DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 00-292089 Respondent-Appellee.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC 05-1697 LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D04-471 PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioners, v. LORENZO CAMARGO and ANA CAMARGO, his wife;

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. vs. DCA CASE NO. 1D08-515

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. vs. DCA CASE NO. 1D08-515 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA DELTA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, Case No. SC09-2075 vs. DCA CASE NO. 1D08-515 PROFILE INVESTMENTS, INC., Respondent. / AMICUS BRIEF OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 LAUREN KYLE HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a SAGO HOMES, Appellant, v. CASE NOS. 5D02-3358 5D03-980 HEATH-PETERSON CONSTRUCTION

More information

Rodney v. Arizona Bank, 836 P.2d 434, 172 Ariz. 221 (Ariz. App. Div. 2, 1992)

Rodney v. Arizona Bank, 836 P.2d 434, 172 Ariz. 221 (Ariz. App. Div. 2, 1992) Page 434 836 P.2d 434 172 Ariz. 221, 17 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 886 Theron D. RODNEY, Claimant/Cross-Plaintiff in Interpleader/Appellee, v. The ARIZONA BANK (now known as Security Pacific Bank Arizona), Claimant/Cross-Defendant

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-765

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-765 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-765 AL-NAYEM INTER L INCORPORATED Plaintiff/Petitioner, vs. EDWARD J. ALLARD, Defendant/Respondent. PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION SECOND DISTRICT CASE

More information

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No v UNREPORTED

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No v UNREPORTED Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 408212v UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1684 September Term, 2016 VICTOR NJUKI v. DIANE S. ROSENBERG, et al., Substitute Trustees

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA BRIEF OF PETITIONER FRANCISCO BROCK ON JURISDICTION

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA BRIEF OF PETITIONER FRANCISCO BROCK ON JURISDICTION Filing # 15242270 Electronically Filed 06/25/2014 04:07:04 PM RECEIVED, 6/25/2014 16:08:49, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA FRANCISCO BROCK, : v. Petitioner,

More information

Uniform Assignment of Rents Act

Uniform Assignment of Rents Act Uniform Assignment of Rents Act According to the Uniform Law Commissioners (ULC), the Uniform Assignment of Rents Act establishes a comprehensive statutory model for the creation, perfection, and enforcement

More information

Lease Guaranties: Assignments, Releases, Waivers and Related Issues

Lease Guaranties: Assignments, Releases, Waivers and Related Issues Lease Guaranties: Assignments, Releases, Waivers and Related Issues Daniel Goodwin & Jenny Teeter Gill Elrod Ragon Owen & Sherman, P.A. Little Rock, Arkansas Introduction The economic downturn has resulted

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC07-1079 DAVID J. LEVINE, et al, v. Appellants, JANICE HIRSHON, etc., et al, Appellees. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS On Questions and Conflict of Decisions Certified by

More information

TRUST, INDEMNITY AND SECURITY AGREEMENT WITH DEPOSIT OF FUNDS TO PROTECT AND SECURE AGAINST EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE

TRUST, INDEMNITY AND SECURITY AGREEMENT WITH DEPOSIT OF FUNDS TO PROTECT AND SECURE AGAINST EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE TRUST, INDEMNITY AND SECURITY AGREEMENT WITH DEPOSIT OF FUNDS TO PROTECT AND SECURE AGAINST EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE Trust Indemnity and Security Agreement No. Whereas, the Chicago Title Insurance Company,

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. BENJORAY, INC., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, ACADEMY HOUSE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008 Opinion filed September 3, 2008. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D08-516 Lower Tribunal No.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LEESBURG COMMUNITY CANCER CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a INTERCOMMUNITY CANCER CENTER,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LEESBURG COMMUNITY CANCER CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a INTERCOMMUNITY CANCER CENTER, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-315 LEESBURG COMMUNITY CANCER CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a INTERCOMMUNITY CANCER CENTER, Appellant/Petitioner, vs. LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 23, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-2968 Lower Tribunal No. 9-65726 Walter Pineda and

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2006 REMINGTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D05-2271 EDUCATION FOUNDATION OF OSCEOLA, etc., et

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. L.T. CASE NO. 4D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. L.T. CASE NO. 4D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. L.T. CASE NO. 4D04-3895 ELLER DRIVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a : Florida Limited Partnership : : Respondent, : : v. : : BROWARD COUNTY, a Political : Subdivision of

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-91 (Lower Tribunal Case Nos. 3D08-944; )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-91 (Lower Tribunal Case Nos. 3D08-944; ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-91 (Lower Tribunal Case Nos. 3D08-944; 03-14195) JOEL ROBBINS, as Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser, and IAN YORTY, as Miami-Dade County Tax Collector,

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. 5D JEAN SNYDER, KYLA RENEE S. PALMITER, et al.,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. 5D JEAN SNYDER, KYLA RENEE S. PALMITER, et al., IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2005 DELEANA HARRELL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D04-1961 JEAN SNYDER, KYLA RENEE S. PALMITER, et al., Appellees. / Opinion

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D10-619

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D10-619 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-2438 COMMERCIAL JET, INC., v. Petitioner, U.S. BANK, N.A., Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D10-619 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 2009-CA-31984-0 Judge:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC (Lower Tribunal Case No. 3D ) REALTY INVESTMENT AND MORTGAGE CORPORATION, INC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC (Lower Tribunal Case No. 3D ) REALTY INVESTMENT AND MORTGAGE CORPORATION, INC. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-2051 (Lower Tribunal Case No. 3D05-2129) REALTY INVESTMENT AND MORTGAGE CORPORATION, INC., Petitioner, vs. JOEL W. ROBBINS, as Property Appraiser for Miami-Dade

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 24, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-1491 Lower Tribunal No. 14-26949 Plaza Tower Realty

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS COVENTRY PARKHOMES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 25, 2012 9:05 a.m. v No. 304188 Oakland Circuit Court FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 1, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-911 Lower Tribunal No. 11-348-M Ruth P. Law, Appellant,

More information

HG& G U PDATE. Keeping Your Priorities Straight: Drafting a Lease for Maximum Protection

HG& G U PDATE. Keeping Your Priorities Straight: Drafting a Lease for Maximum Protection Hofheimer Gartlir & Gross, LLP Summer 2000 Keeping Your Priorities Straight: Drafting a Lease for Maximum Protection In New York, a commercial landlord has no statutory protection with respect to a tenant

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 21, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-3445 Lower Tribunal No. 11-5917 U.S. Bank National

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC14-461

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC14-461 Filing # 11351594 Electronically Filed 03/14/2014 01:09:56 PM RECEIVED, 3/14/2014 13:13:45, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC14-461

More information

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 18, 1998 C.L. HYMAN AUTO WHOLESALE, INC.

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 18, 1998 C.L. HYMAN AUTO WHOLESALE, INC. Present: All the Justices TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION v. Record No. 972212 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 18, 1998 C.L. HYMAN AUTO WHOLESALE, INC. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 21, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Nos. 3D17-1198 & 3D17-1197 Lower Tribunal Nos. 16-26521 and

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005 ROBERT L. MELLER AND KRISTINE M. MELLER, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D03-4094 FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, ET AL.,

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2010 LR5A-JV, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-3857 LITTLE HOUSE, LLC, ET AL., Appellee. / Opinion filed December 10, 2010

More information

William S. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. In this eminent domain action, the JEA appeals a final order awarding

William S. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. In this eminent domain action, the JEA appeals a final order awarding IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JEA, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009 Opinion filed February 04, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D08-2711 Lower Tribunal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THOMAS MCKEAN, ET AL., vs. Petitioner, PETER WARBURTON, Respondent. CASE NO. SC04-1243 Lower Tribunal No. 4D03-1954 PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS Bruce D. Barkett, Esq.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION May 16, 2006 9:10 a.m. v No. 265717 Jackson Circuit Court TRACY L. PICKRELL, LC No.

More information

Assignment of Leases and Rents

Assignment of Leases and Rents Assignment of Leases and Rents This ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS (this Assignment ) is given as of the day of, 20 by ( Assignor ) to ( Assignee ). RECITALS A. Assignor is the owner of the real property

More information

Senate Bill No. 301 Senator Smith

Senate Bill No. 301 Senator Smith Senate Bill No. 301 Senator Smith CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to taxation; requiring a county treasurer to assign a tax lien against a parcel of real property located within the county if an assignment

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 18, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D18-252 Lower Tribunal No. 15-29481 Space Coast Credit

More information

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION MICHAEL DAYTON, Petitioner, v. Case No.

More information

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. Next Assignments. In re Edry

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. Next Assignments. In re Edry Next Assignments Pages 700 743 (Distribution of Proceeds; Lien Revival; Statutory Redemption; Deficiency Judgments) Pages 574 585 (Merger; Deeds in Lieu of Foreclosure; Short Sales ) Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAROLD COFFIELD and WINDSONG PLACE, LLC, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Petitioners/Plaintiffs, CASE NO.: SC 09-1070 v. L.T.: 1D08-3260 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Respondent/Defendant, / PETITIONERS

More information

EXTRACT FOR QUESTION 2

EXTRACT FOR QUESTION 2 MARYLAND BAR EXAMINATION BOARD S WRITTEN TEST July 26, 2016 EXTRACT FOR QUESTION 2 THIS EXTRACT IS TO BE USED FOR QUESTION 2 OF THE BOARD S WRITTEN TEST. THIS EXTRACT CONTAINS SELECTED PROVISIONS OF THE

More information

KANSAS LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT

KANSAS LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENT (COMPANY NAME), LLC A Member-Managed Limited Liability Company KANSAS LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective (Month

More information

NON-STANDARD (VENDOR ORIGINATED) CONTRACT PROCESSING PROCEDURE

NON-STANDARD (VENDOR ORIGINATED) CONTRACT PROCESSING PROCEDURE NON-STANDARD (VENDOR ORIGINATED) CONTRACT PROCESSING PROCEDURE I. Purpose: 1. To provide a consistent and uniform process for reviewing, revising, executing and tracking non-standard contracts and, 2.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Case: 16-20507 Document: 00514362939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 26, 2018 Lyle

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC04-815 LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D03-2440 THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner, v. VERENA VON MITSCHKE-COLLANDE and CLAUDIA MILLER-OTTO, in their capacity as the HEIRS

More information

IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO

IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 07-1400 CITY OF PARKER, FLORIDA, and CITY OF PARKER COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, L. T. Case No.: 07-000889-CA Appellants, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, et. al, BOND VALIDATION

More information

Motor Vehicle Conditional Sales -- Inapplicability of a Statutory Exception to the Rule of Comity

Motor Vehicle Conditional Sales -- Inapplicability of a Statutory Exception to the Rule of Comity University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 12-1-1962 Motor Vehicle Conditional Sales -- Inapplicability of a Statutory Exception to the Rule of Comity Carlos

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. DON MITCHELL REALTY/ : JACKIE COLE Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. DON MITCHELL REALTY/ : JACKIE COLE Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO [Cite as Don Mitchell Realty v. Robinson, 2008-Ohio-1304.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO DON MITCHELL REALTY/ : JACKIE COLE Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 22031 vs. : T.C. CASE

More information

3 Selected Cases On Ground Leases

3 Selected Cases On Ground Leases 3 Selected Cases On Ground Leases 3.1 INTRODUCTION Certain problems arise again and again in the world of ground leases. Most of this book seeks to prevent those problems by recognizing that they can occur

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 27, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1822 Lower Tribunal No. 12-1444-K Federal National

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 9, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2671 Lower Tribunal No. 12-13342 Akin Bay Company,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011 Opinion filed April 13, 2011. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Nos. 3D10-979 and 3D09-1924 Lower

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC06-2461 DOUGLAS K. RABORN, et al., Appellants, vs. DEBORAH C. MENOTTE, etc., Appellee. [January 10, 2008] BELL, J. We have for review two questions of Florida law certified

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REL: 05/15/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT VILLAS OF WINDMILL POINT II PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee. No. 4D16-2128 [ October

More information

v. Case No SUMMARY FINAL ORDER Comes now, the undersigned arbitrator, and issues this summary final order as

v. Case No SUMMARY FINAL ORDER Comes now, the undersigned arbitrator, and issues this summary final order as STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Federal National Mortgage Association,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 14-20678 Document: 00513136366 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar DAVID D. ERICSON; ROSEMARY ERICSON, Plaintiffs Appellants,

More information